Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Colorado ballot measures/archive1

List of Colorado ballot measures

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to

Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ThadeusOfNazereth: Hi! I noticed that this peer review has been left untouched for almost half a year–that's just unfair. I will be going through and make some comments/alterations so that at least something might come of this review, even if it isn't the most thorough and might need additional review before it's considered sufficient. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about this post, so I appreciate you taking a look :). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely no problem! I want to lead off by saying that what I'm seeing is fairly strong. I have only added archive links for a couple sources thus far and will see what books I own that might allow for additional secondary sourcing on some of this content (even though I think that the CO state gov sources are likely sufficient for the standards of FLC on this topic). ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok! Doing a more in-depth review! Lets start with some basics:
  • Prose: The "Background" section provides a nice overview of Colorado's ballot history, including some of the more notable measures. Particularly appreciable is the variety of measures included here, with measures from multiple points in history (avoiding
    WP:RECENTISM
    extremely well) and with varied outcomes. The section is well-written and, per my checks, looks like a very close summary of the sources cited. If this article is oriented towards FA status, I would perhaps add a sentence or two to the "Types of ballot measures" section, but I think that it provides a more than adequate summary.
  • Sourcing: I've performed some spot checks on vote totals and ballot measure descriptions and these have all come out accurate. I hope to give you the luxury of a complete double-check on all of the vote totals by the end of this peer review. The sourcing for these totals vary in origin but all appear perfectly adequate to satisfy any metric of reliability.
  • MOS: Everything appears to be in good shape here. Formatting looks good, the list is organized appropriately, and the prose sections are positioned correctly.
• Overall, on my first proper pass of this article, I already feel confident that this article could pass a GAR. I will perform additional source reviewing and perhaps suggest minor additions to the prose sections. This peer review should be complete this month. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]